Posted on 09/30/2005 8:57:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
If you want people to vote against a political reform measure, do you really want your campaign represented by a man who went to prison on political corruption charges?
That's just what happened in Bakersfield earlier this week when The Californian's editorial board hosted an informal debate on Proposition 77, the redistricting reform measure on the Nov. 8 ballot.
If passed, it would take the drawing of legislative and congressional district lines out of the hands of politicians, who can manipulate the lines to ensure their re-elections. It would turn the job over to a non-partisan panel of retired judges. Voters would then have to ratify the lines.
The measure is opposed by many leaders in both parties who prefer the current system that they can control.
The editorial board, which studies issues before the paper decides on editorial endorsements, called the yes-and-no campaign organizations seeking spokesmen.
Mark Abernathy, the Bakersfield political consultant who is manager of the Yes on 77 campaign, agreed to speak for that side. He is part of the mainstream Kern County GOP organization, where there is strong support for the reform plan.
Paul Hefner, the spokesman for the official No on 77 campaign, arranged for two people to show up for the no side. One was Lois Chaney of the Bakersfield chapter of the League of Women Voters, whose statewide organization opposes 77.
The other was Frank Hill, who identified himself as a former state legislator from Whittier.
What Hill did not mention was that he spent many months in the federal prison in Boron in the mid-1990s. He was one of five lawmakers convicted on corruption charges stemming from an FBI sting operation. Two lobbyists and some legislative aides also went to jail in the sting in which FBI agents posed as businessmen who wanted help financing a non-existent shrimp processing plant.
In the "shrimpscam" sting, Hill was sentenced to 46 months in prison on charges of extortion, conspiracy and money laundering in September 1994. The heart of the case against him was videotape of him accepting a $2,500 check in a hotel room and promising agents he would help them with their bill.
Hill insisted he was innocent, but he failed to convince a federal jury.
In the editorial board meeting, Hill made an effective spokesman for the opposition to 77, said Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty.
"He seemed like a pleasant enough fellow and able to explain why Proposition 77 would not be good government," she said. "Little did we know that it could be argued that he was the poster boy for what's wrong with government."
In the meeting, Abernathy was the only one aware of Hill's background, but he brought up an entirely different chapter in Hill's past, a more local connection.
He reminded people that Hill played a prominent role in one of the most bitter election campaigns in Kern County history.
That was the 1986 Republican primary election in which former Assemblyman Trice Harvey was running for state office for the first time.
Hill was a part of the conservative Assembly Republican leadership team in Sacramento that initially endorsed and helped fund Harvey's campaign. But two weeks before the election, they became concerned that Harvey was too close to moderate Rep. Bill Thomas. They turned on Harvey and endorsed his primary election opponent, Anna K. Allen.
Hill, talking about Harvey, told reporters the GOP would "drive a stake in his heart" if necessary to defeat him.
They didn't do either, and Harvey set off on a legislative career in which he was at odds not only with the Democratic majority, but also the leadership of his own party much of the time.
Abernathy said later he decided it wasn't the time to bring up Hill's prison record at the meeting.
"I didn't want to sit in front of all those people and say he's back from jail," Abernathy said.
But after it was over, Abernathy said Hill damages the credibility of the No on 77 campaign.
"Just having sitting legislators of both parties running the campaign against Proposition 77 is bad enough, he said. "To bring back the old cosa nostra -- that makes it even worse."
Hefner, the spokesman for the anti-77 campaign, said he sees nothing wrong with the role played by Hill, who has made several other campaign appearances.
"Quite frankly, he is a very effective spokesman and representative for the campaign," Hefner said. "He, like a lot of folks, believes Proposition 77 doesn't represent the reform that its proponents would have you believe."
"We're happy to have him on the campaign," Hefner added.
But that was mystifying to Hardisty.
"Why would the No on Proposition 77 campaign send out someone with a felony record to argue against a political reform initiative?" she asked.
Non-partisan judges, now there's an oxymoron if ever I've heard one. The retired judges must love this, as it maintains a steady income stream, (unless you believe that no one will try to buy the judges off) through out their golden years.
Best regards
Sergio
Yeah. That's the weakness. The strength is voters get to ratify the districts, which is more than they can do now.
True, good point.
Since representatives are chosen based on population, why not have the districts drawn by COUNTIES. The lines are already there. Each county would have reps based on the population of that county. Ballots are counted by counties .. why not have representatives by counties ..?? However, the big difference would be - no matter how many reps there were per county - the reps would have to represent THE WHOLE COUNTY and not their little pocket district like they do now. I believe reps would no longer be safe and that reps would do a change over more often.
Here in San Diego, we are primarily conservative - being a large military community (active and retired). However, there are these little districts within the county where they have these pockets of liberals and they somehow manage to get elected .. thereby making the representation of the county terribly skewed. I really hate it.
This way .. in the county I live in which is very large (San Diego) - I would have a better chance of having at least a few people in Congress representing MY POINT OF VIEW .. INSTEAD OF NOBODY. In a recent redistricting, I got rid of the horrible Susan Davis - and gained the great Duncan Hunter. That's ONE (1) .. ONE PERSON WHO REPRESENTS ME.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.